Chemtronics, Inc.

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Chemtronics, Inc. and Local 42, Industrial Production Employees Union. Case 29 CA-5374 May 18, 1978 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS PENI.I.()., MURPIIY, AND TR FSDAI I On October 31, 1977, Administrative Law Judge Thomas D. Johnston issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclu- sions of the Administrative law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein. The Administrative Law Judge found that, on Oc- tober 8, 1976, Union Vice President Lasky met with a number of Respondent's employees on Respondent's parking lot. During this meeting, Lasky and other union officials solicited employees Sugden, Biondi, and Rosemarie and Robert Sohl to sign union au- thorization cards. While this solicitation was occur- ring, Respondent's president, Louis Friedman, who had been alerted to the solicitation, came out to the parking lot accompanied by his dog and ordered La- sky and the other union representatives off Respon- dent's property. Based on credited testimony, the Administrative Law Judge found that Friedman then went to Robert Sohl and asked him what was going on, what was said, and whether he had signed a union card. The Administrative Law Judge concluded, without discussion, that Respondent, by the above conduct. not only unlawfully interrogated Robert Sohl regard- ing his union activities, but also engaged in unlawful surveillance of the employees' union activities. We adopt the Administrative Law Judge's finding that Respondent, by the foregoing conduct of Louis Friedman, unlawfully interrogated Sohl. We disagree with the Administrative Law Judge's finding of un- lawful surveillance. The Board has held that "union representatives and employees who choose to engage in their union activities at the employer's premises should have no cause to complain that management observes them." 2 As the October 8 meeting between Respon- dent's employees and the Union's representatives was conducted in full public view on Respondent's own parking lot, Respondent did not engage in un- lawful surveillance of that meeting. Nor did it do so by interrupting the meeting and directing the union officials to leave the premises. Its latter actions were the exercise of a legitimate proprietary prerogative and were not rendered unlawful by virtue of the sub- sequent unlawful interrogation of employee Robert Sohl. Accordingly, we shall dismiss that portion of the complaint alleging unlawful surveillance in this incident. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Chemtronics, Inc., Hauppauge, New York, its offi- cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modified: I. Delete paragraph l(a) and reletter the remain- ing paragraphs accordingly. 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative Law Judge. Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative l.aw Judge It is the Board's established policy not to over- rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credihilits unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dr, H/all Produ is. In., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. The Administrative Law Judge found that employee l.ucian Jones volun- tarily signed an authorization card on October 8 and that the card is there- fore valid for purposes of determining the Union's majority. In so inding. the Administratie Lasw Judge discredited Jones' testimony that he signed the card only after being threatened with physical harm if he failed to do so, while we agree with the Administrative Law Judge for the various other reasons stated by him that Jones' card is valid, we do not adopt his state- nment that Jones' participation in the strike on October I I s inconsistent with any prior alleged threat of harm to him. 2 iih¥c, Inc, e' al. 159 NLRB 812. 814 (1966). See also larand Leivure- ihe. Inc .213 NLRB 197. 205 1974): and Mitchell Plavits. Incorporated, 159 NIRB 1574, 1576 (1966) APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF TIHE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE ILLt NOT coercively interrogate our em- ployees concerning their union membership and activities and those of other employees. WE WlLt NOT threaten our employees with stricter working conditions for selecting the 236 NLRB No. 21 178 CHEMTRONICS. INC. Union to represent them. WF wii.1 NOT threaten our employees with possible physical harm because of their union activities. WI: wI. l NOi discharge. refuse to reinstate, or otherwise discriminate against our employees because of their membership in. sympathies for. or activities on behalf of Local 42. Industrial Production Employees Union. or an, other la- bor organization, or because thev engage in con- certed activities for the purpose of mutual aid or protection. Wi wit Nor harass our employees by impos- ing upon them more onerous working conditions because of their union activities. Wr wi.t. Not discontinue providing our em- ployees with coffee and rolls and with their smoking privileges in the warehouse area be- cause of their union activities. WtI wii.i NOt refuse to bargain collectively and in good faith concerning rates of pay. wag- es, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment with Local 42. Indus- trial Production Employees Union, as the exclu- sive representative of the employees in the bar- gaining unit described below. Wi. Wil.i NOT make unilateral changes in the terms and conditions of our employees in the bargaining unit described below. WE WIL.t. NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organization. to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted ac- tivities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the ex- tent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor or- ganization as a condition of employment as au- thorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Wt wl. t offer immediate and full reinstate- ment to Edward Biondi, Robert Sohl, and Rose- marie Sohl to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, then to substantially equivalent jobs. without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and we- wiIli make each of them whole along with Thomas Sugden for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of our discrimination against them, with interest. Wi- wil.i restore providing our employees with coffee and rolls and with their smoking privi- leges in the warehouse area as they existed prior to their discontinuance on October 14, 1976. WF Wit w recognize and, upon request, bargain collectively and in good faith with Local 42, In- dustrial Production Employees Union, as the ex- clusive representative of all the employees in the bargaining unit described below with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such un- derstanding in a written signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: All production and maintenance, shipping and receiving employees of Respondent. em- ployed at the Hauppauge plant. exclusive of office clerical employees, guards. professional employees and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act. CIFN MTRONI(S. INC DECISION SlAIEN[iiNT O)F THE CASE THOMAs D JOHINSTON. Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard at Hauppauge, New York, on June 6-10, 1977, pursuant to a charge filed by Local 42, Industrial Production Employees Union (herein referred to as the Union). on December 15, 1976,1 and a complaint issued on January 18, 1977. The complaint, which was amended at the hearing, alleg- es that Chemtronics, Inc. (herein referred to as the Respon- dent), violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein referred to as the Act), by interrogating its employees concerning their union membership. activities, and sympathies; by keeping under surveillance the meeting places, meetings, and activities of the Union and the concerted activities of its employees conducted for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection; threatening its employees with the loss of privileges, more arduous and less agreeable job tasks, closer surveillance of their work, and other repri- sals if they became or remained members of the Union and gave assistance and support to it; harassed its employees by subjecting them to closer supervision of their work, by withdrawing privileges they previously enjoyed and impos- ing on them onerous working conditions because they had joined and assisted the Union, engaged in a strike and picketing and other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and mutual aid and protection; ceased providing free coffee and rolls daily to employees who supported the Union during the strike while continu- ing to furnish them to employees who did not support the strike; discharged employees Edward Biondi on October 8. Robert Sohl on October I, and Thomas Sugden on Octo- A11l dates referred lo are in 1976 unless other ise stated 179 DECISIONS OF NATIONAlL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ber I 1, and thereafter reinstated them on or about October 14 to their former or substantially equivalent positions of employment and thereafter discharged Robert Sohl on Oc- tober 14 and Rosemarie Sohl on October 30, and harassed Edward Biondi by withdrawing privileges he previously en- joyed, subjected him to closer supervision of his work, and imposed on him onerous working conditions forcing him to quit his employment on or about October 22, thereby dis- charging him and thereafter refusing to reinstate Robert Sohl. Rosemarie Sohl, and Edward Biondi because they joined and assisted the Union, engaged in a strike and picketing and other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and mutual aid and protection: and by negotiating with the Union in bad faith and with no intention to enter into any final or binding collective-bar- gaining agreement with it; and thereafter refused to negoti- ate with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representa- tive of its employees in the unit. The amended complaint further alleges the Respondent engaged in the conduct to undermine the Union and destroy its majority status and that said conduct was of such a serious and substantial nature as to prevent the holding of a fair election among the employees. The Respondent, in its answer filed on January 31. 1977. which was amended at the hearing, denies having violated the Act. The issues involved are whether the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1). (3), and (5) of the Act, by engaging in un- lawful interrogations, surveillance, threats, and harassment of its employees with respect to their union and concerted activities: ceased providing free coffee and rolls to employ- ees and withdrew other privileges because they supported the Union during the strike: by discriminatorily discharg- ing and/or refusing to reinstate Edward Biondi, Robert Sohl. Thomas Sugden. and Rosemarie Sohl. and construc- tively discharging Edward Biondi, because of their union or protected concerted activities; and whether the Respon- dent engaged in bad-faith bargaining with the Union and thereafter refused to negotiate with the Union as the exclu- sive bargaining representative of its employees in the unit. Upon the entire record 2 in this case, and from my obser- vations of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the oral arguments presented by' the General Counsel and the Respondent at the hearing, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCI.SIONS I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent, a New York corporation, with its prin- cipal office and place of business located at Hauppauge, New York, is engaged in the business of the packaging and wholesale distribution of electronic chemicals and related products. During the 12-month period preceding January 18, 1977, a representative period, Respondent, in the course of its operations, sold and shipped products valued - Unless otherwise indicated the findings are based on pleadings .dmls silns. slpulaliolns, and undisputed evidence contained in the record a cllh I credit. ' None of the palrtics filed briefs in this matter. in excess of $50,000 from its place of business directly to States located outside the State of New York. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 1I 1Ilt. LABOR OR(GA;,IZTION INVOLVEI Local 42, Industrial Production Employees Union. is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III ItE t NFAIR IABOR PRA(I 1I('S A. BaRcground The Respondent operates a plant located in Hauppauge, New York, where it is engaged in the packaging and whole- sale distribution of electronic chemicals and related prod- ucts. Al Friedman is president and his son, Louis Fried- man, is general manager.4 About October 8 the Union began an organizing cam- paign among Respondent's employees who were not repre- sented by any labor organization. Following unsuccessful demands for recognition by the Union on October 8 and II the Union engaged in a strike which lasted from October 11 to October 13, at which time the Respondent agreed to recognize and bargain with the Union as the bargaining agent of its unit employees. There- after negotiations were conducted for a collective-bargain- ing agreement without success. These proceedings arose out of conduct occurring during the organizing campaign up through the negotiations. B. Unla)vful Interrogations. Surveillance, Threats, and Harassment On October 8, the Union's vice president, Lasky, met with employees Thomas Sugden and Edward Biondi at the Respondent's parking lot, at which time they both signed union authorization cards. Robert Sohl and his wife. Rose- marie, were also asked to sign cards. While they were there President Friedman came out with his dog and ordered Lasky and the other union representatives off the property. Edward Biondi testified that Friedman ordered both him and Sugden back inside to work, while Robert Sohl stated that Friedman came over and asked him what was going on, what was said, and whether he had signed a card. These witnesses all placed the incident as occurring dur- ing the lunch period. President Friedman acknowledged that before going out to the parking lot he had been informed by an employee the union was soliciting his employees. While he first stated he learned of this about 4 p.m., he subsequently testified it was about 2:30 or 3:30 p.m. Friedman, who contended he could not remember who the employees were he saw on that occasion, denied asking Robert Sohl if he had signed a union card. Friedman further stated that after the union representatives left the parking lot they continued to hand 4 Bolh President :riedall n ind (eneral IlManager I riedman ire ilgents, of the R c,.., ndcnl 180 CHEMITRONICS. INC. out cards to employees adjacent to the Company's prop- erty. Based on the testimony of Thomas Sugden. Edward Biondi, Robert Sohl, Rosemarie Sohl, and Vice President Lasky, whom I credit, rather than President Friedman. whom I discredit, I find that during the lunch period on October 8 President Friedman engaged in surveillance of the employees' union activities and interrogated Robert Sohl about his conversation with the union representative and about whether he signed a union card. Besides my observation of the witnesses, in discrediting President Friedman I find he testified in an evasive manner and con- tradicted his own testimony. That same day after lunch, Thomas Sugden and Edward Biondi were assigned to perform cleanup work in the com- pressor room, which work consisted of crushing and stack- ing boxes.5 Neither of them had performed such work be- fore. Both Robert Sohl and Anthony Naglieri testified that President Friedman had told them to assign Sugden and Biondi to work there. Sohl also testified that, at the time President Friedman told him to make the assignments. Friedman first asked him if he knew who, or if anyone. had signed cards, whereupon he told Friedman both Sugden and Biondi had. President Friedman, who did not testify concerning the assignments or the conversations, only denied ever asking Robert Sohl if he had signed a union card. I credit the testimony of Sohl rather than Friedman for reasons previ- ously given and find that President Friedman on October 8 interrogated Robert Sohl about who had signed union cards. The Union's vice president, Garber, testified that, on the morning of October 11 upon asking President Friedman for recognition and showing him the signed authorization cards of seven employees including Zellena Marshall.' Friedman looked at the cards, picked out one of them. and asked an office girl to get Marshall. When Marshall ap- peared Friedman asked her whether she signed the card for the union. President Friedman denied ever being shown any union authorization cards. While Marshall denied the incident she stated that earlier that morning President Friedman had informed her, pursuant to her inquiry, that he had not said it was all right to sign cards. I credit the testimony of Garber rather than President Friedman. whom I have previously discredited, and Mar- shall, and I find that President Friedman on October I I interrogated Zellena Marshall about whether she had signed a union card. Marshall, whom I discredit, contrad- icted her own testimony and professed an inability to recall matters reasonably within her own knowledge. Moreover, Friedman's denial that he was ever shown any union au- thorization cards is inconsistent with his acknowledgement that he told his attorney. Burton Horowitz, on October 13 that the cards of Edward Biondi and Lucian Jones were not bona fide.7 This statement is also consistent with the These work assignments, which were for a duration of several hours. were not alleged as violations 6The other six emploNees were Edward Biondl. Dennis Steenheke, Thomas Sugden. Lucian Jones. and Robert and Rosemarie Sthli testimony of Vice President Garber, which I credit, that on October 8. when he initially demanded recognition. he showed President Friedman the union authorization cards of Edward Biondi, Dennis Steenbeke. Thomas Sugden. and Lucian Jones, whereupon Friedman's response was that Biondi no longer worked there and Jones was part time and did not count. On the morning of October 14, which was the day the employees returned to work after the strike ended, General Manager Friedman held a meeting of the employees in the lunchroom. The testimony of four employees presented as witnesses by the General Counsel, Thomas Sugden. Robert Sohl, Edward Biondi. and Rosemarie Sohl. who attended this meeting, establish that General Manager Friedman asked employees such questions as why they did this while he was awavy. if they had signed cards or joined the Union, and whether they knew who started it. Friedman said he had lost all respect for them for getting his father upset, and they had some nerve going behind his back, and, if the employees wanted a union shop. it was going to be run like a union shop and it was going to be stricter. Friedman informed them there would be no more coffee and rolls for the employees, the coffee machine would be taken out and there would be no more smoking in any area of the plant. except for the lunchroom and bathrooms, and if anyone was caught smoking outside thev would be fired. He also said the union people better watch out because they might get hit bs boxes and to stay away from high skids. Some of Friedman's remarks were directed against specific employ- ees. Friedman told Sugden he had some nerve doing this after working there only a week. He informed Robert Sohl he would no longer be allowed in the label room and his duties from then on were to run the labeling machine. Dur- ing this meeting, when Sohl complained that the guards on the Newway machine were inadequate and did not meet OSHA specifications, Friedman told Sohl that Sohi was not going to call OSHA and bring them in there, and asked Sohl who gave him the right to bring OSHA there.9 Fried- man also mentioned that Anthony Naglieri and Gloria Foltzmann were being put on salary. According to these four employees, prior to the meeting the Respondent had furnished the employees with coffee and rolls in the morning and although no smoking signs were posted in the warehouse area the employees were per- mitted to smoke there and there were ashtrays for their use.'O Following this meeting, coffee and rolls were no lon- ger provided nor were the employees permitted to smoke in the warehouse area. According to Sugden, Rosemarie Sohl, and Biondi. after the meeting the only persons they saw having coffee in the office where the coffee machine was President I riedman's proffered explanation that he assumed the, had siglned because then picketed is not perua.si'e 9(ienerarl Mlaniger I riedm;in was out of tw ,n during the period betwe::n October , iand 13 ' Anthln% Nligherl a.l1, recalled Robert Sohl at the meeting making refer- ence to the fact thit the machine was unsafe and that OSt. \ had ruled It unsafe \fler he aInd i:riedlman told Sohl It was safe Sohl said if It did not h.sae the propel protecton he xotuildl 5errule :eriedman and contact OSHA himself 14 \hhile Anlhon Nlighcri stated thait sniking a, l not pernitted in the wareh-ouse Lit ans titlie hbeai. of fnl.lllttahleC. he did not further elaborate or cst.ihlhsh hether Il.ih pioihbitlion wai enf,.rced prior to Octher 14 181 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD moved were Anthony Naglieri, Robert Mayer, and Gloria Foltzmann, none of whom were members of the Union or participated in the strike. Although General Manager Friedman testified, he did not testify concerning what transpired at this meeting. The only witness presented by the Respondent who testified concerning this meeting was Zelltna Marshall. While on direct examination she denied General Manager Friedman held a meeting that dav, on cross-examination she ac- knowledged hearing Robert Sohl on that occasion tell Friedman the machine was unsafe and he was going to call OSHA, but she claimed she was not listening to what else was discussed. While General Manager Friedman denied having any conversation with Robert Sohl about OSHA on October 14. his denial, which I discredit, was contradicted by a statement Respondent gave the Union on October 15, dis- cussed infra, indicating their conversation about OSHA was a reason for discharging Robert Sohl on October 14. Based on the testimony of Thomas Sugden, Robert Sohl, Edward Biondi, and Rosemarie Sohl, which I credit, I find that General Manager Friedman on October 14 interrogat- ed employees concerning their union membership and ac- tivities; threatened employees with stricter working condi- tions because they selected the union to represent them: threatened employees with possible physical harm because of their union activities; announced and thereafter discon- tinued providing employees with coffee and rolls because of their union activities, and announced and thereafter dis- continued the employees' smoking privileges in the ware- house area because of their union activities. Several employees testified that following the October 14 meeting General Manager Friedman had conversations with them concerning their work. Thomas Sugden testified that, beginning the next day, Friedman would come over to his machine 8 or 10 times a day and tell him to work faster. Edward Biondi, who had previously loaded skids, stated that, a couple of times that week, after he had almost com- pleted loading skids, Friedman would tell him to tear them down and redo them. Biondi denied there was anything wrong with the way they were being packed. Rosemarie Sohl testified that Friedman asked her to pick up some 30-pound boxes of cans from the Newway label- ing machine and pile them on a skid. When she refused and asked Friedman about their prior agreement," Fried- man informed her things were different now and told her she was fired because she would not pick up the boxes from the machine. 2 Rosemarie Sohl, after contacting the Union, returned to work the following Monday. General Manager Friedman acknowledged that Rose- marie Sohl was discharged on October 22 and gave as the reason because she had refused to work on the labeling l According to Rosemarie Sohl's undisputed testimon., she had suffered a miscarriage several months c.rlier. followed bh complications. and she was under a doctor's care. Upon her return io work Friedman had agreed that as long is she had some plihsical illness. which still existed. she would he excused from doing that type of :ork. 12 The discharge of Rosemarie Sohl oin this occasion was not alleged .as a violation. machine which included piling boxes on the skids. How- ever, he did not testify concerning the incidents involving Sugden and Biondi. Based on the testimony of Thomas Sugden, Edward Biondi, and Rosemarie Sohl 13 concerning these incidents which followed General Manager Friedman's October 14 threats to impose stricter working conditions on employees because they selected the Union to represent them, I find that General Manager Friedman, about the middle and latter part of October, harassed employees Thomas Sug- den, Edward Biondi, and Rosemarie Sohl by imposing on them more onerous working conditions because of their union activities. Thomas Sugden testified that about late October Gener- al Manager Friedman assigned him to work by Josephine Manzl,'4 who had returned to work after the strike ended. While working beside Manzl, she accused him and the Union of causing her to lose her pension at the Company.'5 Manzl also put a calendar up in front of him circling the day she lost her pension and told him she would circle every day on the calendar so he would have to look at it and it would be on his conscience and his fault she lost her pension. Manzl also called him the lowest scum on earth and said God was going to punish him for things he had done and she did not know how he could work there when everybody in the place hated him. Upon informing General Manager Friedman about these conversations and asking for a day off because it was upsetting him, Friedman informed Sugden that he could not help it and it was not his fault if he could not make friends with people. Friedman denied him the day off be- cause work needed to be done. General Manager Friedman did not testify concerning the incident. During the early part of November, Scott Friedman,' 6 who is a son of President Friedman and a student, worked at the Respondent for 2 days. While working in the cassette area where Thomas Sugden was working, Scott Friedman made remarks to Sugden criticizing him for bringing the Union in and costing his father $10,000 in legal fees. Later that day, on returning to his desk where he was working with tapes and solder, Sugden stated he observed two wires running beneath a cardboard box next to the top of the table by his chair. The two wires led down to the ground underneath the table and to an alcove near where the rest- rooms were located, where they were attached to an en- graving machine lying on the floor which was plugged into the wall through an extension cord. Sugden observed Scott standing behind the wall looking at him. Sugden informed another employee, Mark Hendrickson, who cleared the wires away from his work area. Later that day during the break period Sugden went to the Union and discussed the matter with Vice President Lasky. Upon returning to the plant and talking to President Friedman, Friedman told him his son was using the engraving machine to engrave I he Respondent had knowledge that each of these employees had signed union authorization cards and participated In the strike 4 Josephine Manzl did not testify. ' I he evidence does not establish whether the Respondent had a pension 5sstem "' Scott Friedman did not testify. 182 CHEMTRONICS. INC. something on his watch and there were plenty of wires lying around the warehouse and Sugden was imagining there were wires leading to his desk. Friedman told him he was causing trouble and he could not afford to pay him if he kept running out of the building and calling the union; and that if he kept causing trouble he was going to bring him up to arbitration. Sugden returned to work. President Friedman did not testify concerning this inci- dent. While the Respondent subsequently had knowledge of these two incidents involving conduct engaged in bv other employees against Sugden, absent as here any showing Re- spondent encouraged or condoned such conduct i or that it continued after it was brought to Respondent's attention. I do not find the evidence sufficient to establish that the Respondent was responsible for or violated the Act be- cause of such conduct. While the General Counsel also proffered evidence relat- ing to alleged conduct engaged in by employees Anthony Naglieri. Mark Hendrickson. Michelle Ebert, and Thomas Sugden, regarding acts of interrogation, surveillance, and harassment of other employees on the grounds they were acting as Respondent's agents, absent as here any evidence to show they were acting as agents of the Respondent or that the Respondent had knowledge or and could other- wise be held accountable for their conduct, a discussion of such evidence is hereby omitted. On October 21. Robert Sohl was administered a lie de- tector test by Thomas Raymond, which was arranged and paid for by the Respondent through the services of Masgon Security Services.'8 The test had been arranged to ascertain whether Sohl had engaged in certain misconduct which the Respondent contends was the reason he had previously been discharged. Robert Sohl testified that during the test Raymond asked him such questions as whether he was promised money or a shop steward's position for signing or cam- paigning for the Union, if he was the one who originally called up and organized the union campaign, and whether Thomas Sugden was paid by the Union as an organizer to bring people in the Union. Raymond acknowledged asking Sohl whether he was given any indication or promise of a shop steward's job and whether he knew directly or indirectly on Friday that there would be a strike on Monday and that Sohl told him he was told both indirectly and later directly he could have a shop steward's position at the Respondent. However. Raymond denied asking the other questions attributed to him by Sohl. According to Raymond, prior to the test Pres- ident Friedman asked him to find out such information. Upon being confronted with notes Raymond made dur- ing the test, Raymond contended Sohl also volunteered in- formation that he had received cards from the union peo- ple on Friday and had gone to the union hall that weekend. since both he and his wife were eligible to vote and their It appears from the statements President Friedman made to SuLden that he had looked into the matter involving his son. t Thomas Raymond is a polhygraph examiner and securit, cionsultant employed hby New, York I.le D)etection Labhoratories. Victor (' Kaufman. Inc.lrporll led votes would give the Union needed votes to open activities in the plant. Based on Raymond's own admissions that he had ques- tioned Sohl about his union activities and the strike at the request of President Friedman, which questions were not shown to be essential to the alleged purpose of the test, and such information was then furnished by him to President Friedman, I find that Respondent through its agents Mas- gon Security Services and Thomas Raymond on October 21 interrogated Robert Sohl about his union activities. C. The Discharge at Edward Biondi Edward Biondi was employed by the Respondent as a shipping clerk from September until he was discharged on October 8. His union activities consisted of signing a union authorization card at the lunch period on October 8 and he subsequently engaged in picketing which occurred on Oc- tober 11, 12, and 13. On the afternoon of October 8. while working in the compressor room. where Biondi had been assigned to work at the direction of President Friedman after Friedman had learned through interrogating Robert Sohl that Biondi had signed a union authorization card, discussed supra, Biondi was called to President Friedman's office, at which time Friedman informed him he was discharged. The reasons Friedman gave him were that he was a risk to the Compa- ny and this was reflected in bills from the insurance com- pany whose rates had gone up. While employed by the Respondent Biondi had acci- dently cut his fingers twice while using a razor he was working with in the shipping and receiving department. requiring hospitalization which was paid for by the Re- spondent. The first incident occurred about a week and a half before his discharge and the second occasion on the day of his discharge. Robert Sohl credibly testified without denial that, on the afternoon of October 8 after Biondi's discharge. President Friedman told him to keep his eye on the doors and make sure they stayed locked so the union organizers and their people could not get in the plant, and that he had gotten rid of Biondi and that was one down and one to go. President Friedman did not testify concerning Biondi's initial discharge on October 8. However, he did inform the Union's vice president, Garber, on October 13 that Biondi did not have any right to come back to work because he was fired prior to his having any knowledge of the Union and because Biondi was reckless and could not handle a safety blade. The reinstatement of Biondi was one of the conditions imposed by the Union for ending the strike. On October 14 Biondi was propertly reinstated by the Respondent. At the October 14 meeting held in the lunchroom by General Manager Friedman, discussed supra, Edward Biondi and Robert and Rosemarie Sohl credibly testified without denial that Friedman questioned Biondi about what he was doing there since he had been fired. Accord- ing to Robert and Rosemarie Sohl. Friedman also told Biondi he had lost all respect for him. Following his return to work that day Biondi was as- 183 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD signed to work on the labeling machine where his job was to take full boxes off the rack and load them onto skids, which he continued doing until his termination. In addition he worked in the soldering area and put straw in aerosol cans. The findings. supra, establish that, after the October 14 meeting, General Manager Friedman harassed Biondi by imposing on him more onerous working conditions be- cause of his union activities. About October 22 Biondi had a conversation with Presi- dent Friedman which resulted in his leaving the Respon- dent's employment at that time. Biondi's version was that he was called to President Friedman's office and was asked by Friedman whether he wanted the same offer that Den- nis Steenbeke, a former employee, had been given. Upon asking what the offer was, Friedman told him he would give him 2 weeks' pay and a chance to draw unemplonyment insurance. Friedman also told him he was sorry it hap- pened that way and that they should have gone through him before they made any move. Biondi, later that day. accepted the offer. President Friedman's version, which Biondi denied, was that Biondi came to him and told him he wanted to quit because he could not get along with people in the back who were unfriendly towards him, and asked him for the same deal Steenbeke had received, which was 3 days' pay for being on strike. Friedman denied offering Biondi pay for him to quit or telling Biondi he should have come to him first before signing with the Union. According to Biondi, after his termination he had anoth- er conversation with President Friedman at the plant at which time Friedman showed him an unemployment book which Friedman told him he would sign if Biondi signed a statement given to him. The signed sworn statement executed by Biondi dated November 8 provides in pertinent part as follows: 2. It is my desire to leave the employ of Chemtron- ics Inc. for personal reasons and I have not been pres- sured or asked to leave the employ of Chemtronics Inc. by any of its officers, directors or stockholders. 3. 1 have no claims for damages against Chemtron- ics Inc.. or any of its officers and directors nor will I make any claims in the future. Biondi also received a check for $77.88, dated October 22, which he cashed. Biondi asserted that among his reasons for accepting the Respondent's offer were the pressure and the way General Manager Friedman had been working them. Contrary to President Friedman's assertions, which I discredit, I find that President Friedman, about October 22, successfully solicited Biondi to quit his employment. Further, such offer was similar to offers subsequently made to both Robert and Rosemarie Sohl, discussed infra. D. The October II Discharges of Robert Sohl and 77Tona.s Sugden Thomas Sugden was hired by the Respondent on Octo- ber 2 and performed general warehouse work. His union activities consisted of contacting the Union about organiz- ing Respondent's employees, signing a union authorization card on October 8, and participating in the picketing which occurred on October I 1, 12. and 13. Robert Sohl was hired in March 1975 as a general facto- ry employee. During the 6-month period preceding Octo- ber II he worked as a leadman. Ilis duties included servic- ing, operating, and maintaining the Newway labeling machine and adjacent line, filing and purchasing labels. and inventor' work. His union activities consisted of signing a union authori- zation card on the morning of October II and participating in the picketing which occurred on October I 11., 12. and 13. On the morning of October II11. when Vice President Garber went into the plant to request recognition, he was accompanied by various employees. who had signed union authorization cards. including Thomas Sugden, Robert Sohl. and Rosemarie Sohl. President Friedman acknowl- edged that, on arriving at work that morning he observed employees, including Robert Sohl and I homas Sugden. talking to the Union's vice presidents, Giarber and Ibanez. Thomas Sugden testified that as they entered the foyer President Friedman told him he had only worked there 2 weeks and he no longer had any work for him and he was fired, whereupon he then left. Robert Sohl, whose testimony was corroborated by his wife Rosemarie, stated that, as they entered the foxer ahead of the other employees and the Union's representa- tive. President Friedman came out, pointed at him, and asked him whether he had signed a card. Upon reply ing he had. Friedman told him to get out, whereupon he left. President Friedman stated that when Vice President Garber came in and told him he represented a majority of the employees and asked for recognition, he refused and told them to leave the premises. However., he did not spe- cifically deny discharging either Sugden or Robert Sohl. On October 14 both Robert Sohl and Thomas Sugden were properly reinstated by the Respondent. I credit the testimony of Thomas Sugden. Robert Sohl, and Rosemarie Sohl instead of President Friedman for rea- sons previously stated and find that Friedman discharged both Thomas Sugden and Robert Sohl on October 11 and refused to reinstate them until October 14 and. in addition. interrogated Robert Sohl about whether he signed a union card. E. The Discharge of Rosemarie Sohl, Robert Sohl's Final Discharge Rosemarie Sohl was hired in April 1975. Her union ac- tivities consisted of signing a union authorization card on October II and participating in the picketing on October 11 and 13. The findings, supra. establish that on October 22 General Manager Friedman harassed Rosemarie Sohl byh imposing on her more onerous working conditions because of her union activities and discharged her when she refused to do such work, notwithstanding a prior agreement she would not be required to perform the work assigned for reasons related to her physical condition. According to Sohl,. on a Fridaiy. after she had returned to work following her discharge. she was given a letter 1 by 19 Sohl siated she lost the letter 184 CHEMTRONICS. INC. the office secretary which stated if she did not pick up boxes from the machines on to the skids she would be fired. Respondent's records show that Rosemarie Sohl was giv- en the following warning,20 dated October 28. by General Manager Friedman: Since your discharge on October 22. 1976, you have not shown a willingness to improve your attitude or your performance. You are expected to perform the work assigned to you at the time of hire: which includ- ed the labeling machine. Unless you show immediate improvement in this area, you will leave me no re- course but to discharge you. The following Monday, after receiving the warning, Sohl stated that, on asking General Manager Friedman about the letter and their previous agreement, he made no re- sponse. She then asked him why he was doing it to both her and her husband and she denied that her husband had broken the machine, whereupon Friedman's response was that was not the reason he had fired her husband. When asked what he meant Friedman told her the reason he had fired her husband was because of the Union. She then told Friedman that, since she was not picking up the boxes, she guessed she would not return to work tomorrow, at which time he told her she was fired. General Manager Friedman testified on October 29 21 that Rosemarie Sohl told him she no longer had transpor- tation to get back and forth to work and she was going to quit. 22 Thereafter she did not return to work. I credit Rosemarie Sohl's versions of her conversations with General Manager Friedman, whom I discredit. Apart from my observations of the witnesses, Sohl's October 22 discharge and the October 28 warning support the fact that she was discharged as opposed to quitting as Friedman contends. The Respondent presented a witness, Gloria Foltzmann. who testified that, the third week in October, Rosemarie Sohl told her she would have to quit because she was has- ing transportation problems since her husband was no lon- ger employed by the Company. On cross-examination. however, when questioned about the conversation which occurred, Foltzmann made no mention about Sohl telling her she would have to quit. Rosemarie Sohl denied ever telling Foltzmann she was going to quit or having an's con- versation with her about quitting, which I credit. Robert Sohl returned to work the morning of October 14. While President Friedman acknowledged he permitted Sohl to return to work at the Union's insistence, he stated that on October 13 he informed the Union's vice president. Garber, he objected to Sohl returning on the grounds Sohl on October 8 had tampered with the labeling machine and the machine which supplies extension tubes to the sides of 2I According to General Manager Friedman. his secretar! gave the .;lrn- ing to Rosemarie Sohl on Octobher 28 -Although Rosemarei Sohl placed her first ditscharge as occurring on October 15 rather than October 22 and her subsequent disch;lrge on ()Ol.- her 25 rather than October 29. Inasmuch tas her timecards reflect she ,sorked during those periods, I find that she was mistaken .,s to the dates Rosenmarie Sohl denied hasing such a <olnsers,atilon cans. Friedman also contended at the hearing that Sohl had engaged in thefts of company property. These objec- tions, according to Friedman, were based on information furnished him by Anthony Naglieri on October 8. Anthony Naglieri testified that, while attempting to op- erate the labeling machine on October I, when President Friedman asked him what was wrong, he informed Fried- man that Robert Sohl had tampered with the Newway la- beling machine and he had also stolen aerosol cans and tapes. 23 Although the Newway labeling machine was par- tially repaired and operated that day the other machine was not operative. Both machines were subsequently re- paired by General Manager Friedman that week. According to Naglieri, on the afternoon of October 8, while he and Robert Sohl were discussing the Union, Sohl mentioned he was thinking of joining the Union and said if he was not there to run the machine nobody would run it and the plant could not put out the product. Sohl then left. whereupon he followed Sohl and observed him touch the knobs on the Newway labeling machine and turn them, changing the feed rates. Naglieri acknowledged he had onl infrequently operated the labeling machine himself. Sohl, whose job it was to operate the Newway labeling machine, denied sabotaging it or any other machine. and except for acknowledging during his lie detector test on October 21. that he might have accidentally picked up a pen or paperclip. denied he had ever taken any company property intentionally. Sohl did admit telling Naglieri, on October 8, while they were discussing the Union, that he could really screw up the arm on the Newway machine and they would have a hard time getting out the goods. Accord- ing to Sohl both he and Naglieri were joking and Naglieri also made comments about shipping freight to the wrong place. I credit Sohl's denials that he sabotaged the machines 24 or stole company property. rather than Naglieri whom I discredit. Further, Naglieri's testimony about the alleged thefts was of a conclusionary nature unsupported by any probative evidence. Robert Sohl's final discharge occurred on the afternoon of October 14. Sohl testified that, about 5 p.m.. General Manager Friedman told him he was fired. Upon asking the reason, Friedman told him he was going to be fired be- cause someone had sabotaged the machines in the rear of the plant. When Sohl denied sabotaging the machines, Friedman told him he knew that but said it was a sure way of getting rid of him. Friedman also cursed him, told him to get out, and said he never wanted to see him again, that he had made life really hard for him and his father the past week, and now things were going to be the same for him and they were going to make sure he did not get unemploy- ment benefits. General Manager Friedman's version was he called Sohl :' Ihe Respondent offered noi eidence concerning the detail, of these allieed thefts :' During the lie detector test administered to Robert Sohl on October 21 as discussed ripri, which occurred after he hald tlreads been discharged. Thomas Ranymond, who conducted the lest, stated. contrar tio Sohl's denl- als that Sohl had admitted tampering A ith the arm of the labeling machine However. under cross-examination, after being confronted nith his ow(n notes. Raymond stated that Soihl also told him he had realdjlusted the knobs to their proper posittons 185 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in the office and told him he was fired for sabotaging the spray machine 25 and the Newway labeling machine and for stealing.2 6 He denied Sohl made any response. Based upon their testimony, I find Robert Sohl was a more credible witness and credit his testimony rather than General Manager Friedman, whom I previously discred- ited. According to Robert Sohl's undisputed testimony, on the morning of October 15, he and the Union's vice presi- dent, Ibanez. met with President Friedman, Jacques Ebert, and General Manager Friedman concerning his discharge, at which time President Friedman gave Ibanez two docu- ments which Ibanez showed him while in the office. One document was a notarized statement dated October 14, containing the names of Gloria Foltzmann, Zellena Mar- shall, and Anthony Naglieri, which stated that, during the meeting Louis Friedman had held with the employees, they had overheard Robert Sohl make the following comments regarding the labeling machine: This machine is unsafe and I'm going to call OSHA down. When advised by Louis Friedman that this ma- chine was inspected by OSHA, and no violations were found and all safety guards necessary were on the ma- chine, he responded: If he didn't have the proper pro- tection he would overrule Mr. Friedman and contact OSHA himself. The other document dated October 15 and signed by General Manager Friedman stated the air control line on the fludic tube applier machine had been cut and the de- vice inside the control box powered by the cut line was connected to a dummy line which had no supply, making the machine inoperative, and reflected a repair cost of $367. The statement also accused Sohl of arranging a delib- erate sabotage of the machine prior to the strike.27 Union Vice President Garber testified that, on Novem- ber 4, he arranged with Attorney Horowitz for Robert Sohl to return to work on November 5. However, when Sohl went to the plant, General Manager Friedman informed him he was not going back to work. Robert Sohl then con- tacted Vice President Garber, who again contacted Attor- ney Horowitz, at which time Horowitz proposed a settle- ment for both Robert Sohl and his wife Rosemarie in lieu of reinstating them to their jobs. The proposed settlement for Robert Sohl included 3 days' strike pay, vacation and salary pay, and Respondent's agreement that it would not interfere with his collecting unemployment or interfere with any future positions or jobs Sohl applied for. The pro- posed settlement offered Rosemarie Sohl included 3 days' strike pay and vacation pay. On November 8, both Robert and Rosemarie Sohl, nei- ther of whom was working at the time, executed written statements before a notary public, which contained in per- tinent part the following: '2Respondent presented no evidence to establish that Sohl had sabotaged the spray machine. *6 Sohl denied any mention of theft was ever made to him until after he took the lie detector test at which time he was asked questions about wheth- er he had stolen property from the Company. 27 As presiously notled. the Respondent offered no evidence to sho,, Sohl sabotaged this machine 2. It is my desire to leave the employ of Chemtron- ics Inc. for personal reasons and I have not been pres- sured or asked to leave the employ of Chemtronics Inc. by any of its officers, directors, or stockholders. 3. I have no claims for damages against Chemtron- ics Inc., or any of its officers and directors nor will I make any claims in the future. President Friedman gave Robert Sohl a check for $262.34 and Rosemarie Sohl a check for $80.13, which they both subsequently endorsed and cashed. F. Recognition of the Union and the Refusal To Bargain The pleadings established, and I find, that the following unit constitutes a unit appropriate for the purpose of col- lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All production and maintenance, shipping and re- ceiving employees of the Respondent, employed at its Hauppauge plant, exclusive of office clerical employ- ees, guards, professional employees and all supervisors defined in Section 2(11) of the Act. On October 13, following demands by the Union on Oc- tober 8 and II for recognition which the Respondent re- fused and a strike by the Union against the Respondent, which lasted from October 11 until October 13, the Re- spondent and the Union executed a written agreement which provided that the Respondent would recognize the Union 28 as the exclusive collective-bargaining agent for the employees in the above unit and agreed to negotiate a collective-bargaining agreement providing for wages, hours of employment, holidays, vacations, and other fringe bene- fits, with negotiations to begin immediately. The agreement was executed by Attorney Horowitz for the Respondent 29 and Vice President Garber and Ibanez for the Union; the)' were furnished the agreement by Presi- dent Friedman. The Respondent's payroll records reflect that at the time the Union demanded recognition on October I I and at the time recognition was granted, on October 13, there were 10 employees employed in the unit, namely Gloria Foltz- mann, Zellena Marshall, Robert Sohl, Robert Mayer, Ro- semarie Sohl, Anthony Naglieri, Dennis Steenbeke, Lucian Jones, Thomas Sugden, and Edward Biondi. According to President Friedman two other employees should have been included in the unit. They were Josephine Manzl, who had been on a leave of absence since September 24 due to her mother's illness, and Mark Hendrickson, who was laid off work on June 8 because work was slow but was told he would be rehired when they were busy again. Both Manzl and Hendrickson subsequently returned to work in Octo- ber. The General Counsel offered as evidence to establish the 2~ While the agreement actually named the International Industrial Pro- duction F:mployees Union. all of the subsequent negotiations were conduct- ed by, and on behalf of. the Union without objection, which Union I find was the recognized bargaining representative. :- Attorney Horowitz represented the Respondent from about October 13 to abrut November 25 and acted as its negotiator during negotiations with the nioln for a collective-bargaining agreement. 186 CHEMTRONICS. INC. Union's majority status union authorization cards 3 signed by seven of the employees in the unit, namely Edward Biondi, Thomas Sugden, Lucian Jones, Dennis Steenbeke. Zellena Marshall, 3 1 Robert Sohl, and Rosemarie Sohl. The union authorization cards of Edward Biondi and Thomas Sugden, which are dated October 8, and those of Robert Sohl and Rosemarie Sohl, which are dated October II and were signed that morning, were properly authenti- cated by the card signers themselves. The union authoriza- tion card of Dennis Steenbeke, 32 which is dated October 8. was properly authenticated by Fawn Russo, a union repre- sentative. and by Edward Biondi. The circumstances surrounding the signing of union au- thorization cards by both Zellena Marshall and Lucian Jones, who acknowledged signing them, are in dispute. Union Representative Russo testified that Jones filled out and signed his card in her presence on October 8 and gave it to her that day. Both the Union's vice presidents, Lasky and Garber, testified they had Jones' union authorization card in their possession that same Friday. The card is dat- ed October 8. Jones, while acknowledging he received his card on Oc- tober 8, stated he did not sign it until the afternoon of October II after Dennis Steenbeke. in the presence of Union Vice Presidents Ibanez and Garber, threatened him with a rock and to run over him if he did not sign the card. Contrary to his testimony, Jones acknowledged having stated in an affidavit to a Board agent, which he now de- nies is true, that he was asked by Steenbeke and Robert Sohl on Friday to sign a union card which he did. Both Ibanez and Garber. as well as Robert Sohl, denied such threats were made to Jones. I credit the testimony of Russo. Ibanez, Irasky, and Gar- ber rather than Jones, whom I discredit, and find that Jones voluntarily signed his authorization card on October 8 without being threatened. Apart from my' observations of the witnesses in discrediting Jones he not only contradicted his own testimony and gave prior inconsistent statements, but his admitted participation in the Union's picketing over a 3-day period, beginning October I 1, is inconsistent with any alleged threats to harm him. Zellena Marshall, who had previously belonged to the Union, signed her union authorization card before work on the morning of October I 1. Although Marshall, called as a witness for the Respondent, stated on direct examination that before signing her card Robert Sohl, accompanied by Dennis Steenbeke, had told her Mr. Friedman had said it would be all right, under cross-examination she acknowl- edged that Sohl also said something to her about needing a card to get a union majority and she took it on her own to sign and did not need Friedman's permission. Robert Sohl, whose version was he told Marshall they had six signatures and hers would be the seventh; and that :0 The union authorization cards contain in pertinent part the followring language: "I hereb) apply for membership in International Industrial Pro- duction Employees Union. and authorize and designate the Union to repre- sent me for collective bargaining with my emploser" 3t A photostatic copy of the original card was submitted for Ze!lenla Mlar- shall who got her original card back and destroyed It following her unlawful interrogation by President Friedman. discussed supnr 3 Dennis Steenbeke did not testifs it was almost unanimous for them to ask for recognition, denied telling Marshall that Al Friedman had approved her signing. While I credit Sohl rather than Marshall for reasons pre- viously given and find that no misrepresentations were made to induce her to sign, the union authorization card on its face clearly and unequivocally authorized the Union to represent the employees for the purpose of collective bargaining. The evidence supra establishes that the Union repre- sented a majority of Respondent's employees. Moreover. Attorney Horowitz testified he examined the union author- ization cards on October 14 and the Union represented a majority of the Respondent's employees. While President Friedman denied at the hearing that the Union ever represented a majority of the employees, I dis- credit his denials which, apart from conclusive evidence to the contrary, are also inconsistent with his participation in granting the Union recognition. About October 14 a meeting was held between President Friedman and Attorney Burton Horowitz 33 for the Re- spondent and Vice Presidents Ibanez and Garber for the Union. Attorney Horowitz testified that at this meeting they were given a copy of the Union's initial contract pro- posal. which they went over. This proposal related to holi- days. vacations, welfare program, severance plan, rest pe- riods, washup time, sick leave, and wages. According to Horowitz the Respondent offered certain proposals relat- ing to holidays and sick leave and denied the Union's pro- posals on the severance plan, rest periods, and washup time. Horowitz also stated that the Union rejected as being too low his proposal for a 10-cent-an-hour raise each year on a 3-year contract. Horowitz further testified that later that day he went over each of these proposals with President Friedman alone and they agreed to offer the Union a wage increase of between 10 cents and 25 cents an hour. Although Presi- dent Friedman at first denied they were given a copy of the Union's proposal at this meeting, upon being confronted with an affidavit given by him to a Board agent, he ac- knowledged they were given a copy of the Union's propos- al and also acknowledged having a discussion with Horo- witz concerning the wage proposal which he would make to the Union. About October 20, Vice President Garber mailed Attor- ney Horowitz a basic form contract. Horowitz, after receiv- ing the proposed agreement, went over it with his secretary. at which time some of the provisions were checked, some were deleted, and additions made to others. Those provi- sions checked included sections entitled "Recognition, Union Security, Discharge, Discrimination, Modification of Agreement, Check-Off, Locker and Dressing Rooms, Work Stoppage, Military Service, Reduction of Benefits, Saving Clause, Union Representatives. Picket Lines and Tools and Equipment." Those sections which contained deletions or proposed changes were entitled "Safety Provi- sions and Lost Time Pay, Seniority. Survival of Contract, Shop Steward. Bulletin Board. Leaves of Absence, and Schedule A, which related to hours, wages, classifications. " Attiornes ltoroiltz was called as a itness by the General ( Counsel 187 DECISIONS OF NATIONAl. IABOR REI.ATIONS BOARD holidays, vacations, and other sundry conditions of emn- ployment." Horowitz also proposed a 3-year contract with a management-rights clause. On October 26 Attorney Horowitz returned the pro- posed contract to Vice President Garber along with a letter containing a proposed management-rights clause which Horowitz wanted included. Garber, upon receipt of the proposed contract from tlo- rowitz, noted on it his disagreement with some of the pro- posed changes Horowitz wanted, which related to sections entitled "Survival of ('ontract. Shop Steward, and Schedule A." On November I Vice President Garber sent Horowitz a proposed contract along with a letter informing Horowitz that before they could finalize the contract he wanted to discuss matters relating to management rights, area radius, shop steward, overtime, holidays, holiday pay for laid-off employees, maternity leave, and wage increases for proba- tionary employees. Garber acknowledged that Horowitz never agreed to go along with the changes mentioned in the letter. Horowitz, upon receiving the proposed contract from Garber, made certain changes in it and submitted it to President Friedman with a cover letter dated November 19. requesting Friedman to look it over and contact him so they could discuss it. According to Horowitz, a day or two later, Friedman called and told him he had received the contract and asked whether there was any need to sign it. Upon inquiring what he meant. Friedman replied he had been advised by certain people that where a union does not represent a majority of the employees at the time of signing a contract there was no need for him to sign a contract. Friedman also said he had gotten rid of everybody who signed for it and he asked Horowitz why he was forcing him to sign a contract. Horowitz denied he was forcing him to sign a contract, explained the law to him, and mentioned they had recognized the Union on October 13, had been negotiating with them, and there was no reason to refuse to sign a contract. On November 24 Attorney Horowitz met with President Friedman and his partner Jacques Ebert. According to Ho- rowitz. Friedman repeated his questions about signing the contract, told him the Union did not represent a majorit., and asked him to fight the Union so he did not have to sign a contract. Horowitz declined. President Friedman acknowledged telling Horowitz at the November 24 meeting and in an earlier conversation that the Company had a majority and he felt there was no logical reason for him to enter into a contractual agree- ment and he would not sign an agreement. Friedman also stated he told Horowitz he should have had an election at the outset, especially since he did not see any of the union cards. According to Friedman he had repeatedly told Ho- rowitz the Union did not have a majority. which Horowitz denied. I credit Attorney Horowitz' denial that President Fried- man had previously told him repeatedly the Union did not represent a majority. which assertions were previously dis- credited and inconsistent with his recognition of the Union. Vice President Garber testified that, after contacting At- torney Horowitz on several occasions in November about the status of the contract and getting no satisfaction, he was referred by Horowitz to President Friedman about November 28 or 29. About the latter part of November or early December. Vice Presidents Garber and Ibanez met with President Friedman, who informed them he would not sign the con- tract and referred them to his new attorney, John Sulli- van 4 On December 3. Vice Presidents Garber and Ibanez met with Attorney Sullivan, who informed them, pursuant to their request, that he would get an answer from Friedman about whether he was going to sign the contract or they would have to renegotiate a new one. On December 6. Attorney Sullivan informed Garber that he had talked to Friedman who had told him he thought that he would be able to get rid of them and that he was not ready to do anything with them. G. Alna/i.¥ aid ('mon lu.ionl TIhe General Counsel contends. contrary to the Respon- dent's denials, that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(I). 13), and (5) of the Act, by engaging in unlawful interrogations, surveillance, threats, and harassment of its employees with respect to their union and concerted activi- ties; by ceasing to provide free coffee and rolls to employ- ees and withdrawing other privileges because they support- ed the Union during the strike: by discriminatorily discharging and or refusing to reinstate Edward Biondi. Robert Sohl, Thomas Sugden. and Rosemarie Sohl because of their union or protected concerted activities; and by engaging in bad-faith bargaining with the Union and there- after refusing to negotiate with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the unit. Section 8(a)(1) of the Act prohibits an employer from interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Section o(a)(3) of the Act provides in pertinent part: "it shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer . . . by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employ- ment or an)' term or condition of employment to encour- age or discourage membership in any labor organization. . . . Section 8(a)(5) of the Act prohibits an employer from refusing to bargain collectively with the representative of its employees. The findings, supra. establish that President Friedman on October 8 engaged in surveillance of the employees' union activities and interrogated Robert Sohl about his conversation with the union representative and about whether he signed a union card; on October 8 interrogated Robert Sohl about who had signed union cards; on Octo- ber II interrogated Zellena Marshall about whether she signed a union card: on October I I interrogated Robert Sohl about whether he signed a union card: Respondent through its agents Masgon Security Services and Thomas Raymond on October 21 interrogated Robert Sohl about his union activities: and General Manager Friedman on ' a,,,,T , 1JiI1n SuIIh.II l ni d rI, I It" tlf 188 CHFMTRONICS, INC. October 14 interrogated employees concerning their ulion memberships and activities: threatened employees Kwith stricter working conditions because thev selected the Union to represent them: and threatened employees with possible physical harm because of their union activities. The test applied in determining whether a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act has occurred is "whether the employer engaged in conduct which. it mas reasonabls be said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights under the Act." Electrical Fittings Corporation. a Subsidiary of I-T-E Imperial Corporation, 216 NLRB 1076 (1975). Applying this test. I find that the Respondent. by engaging in these acts of interrogations. surveillance, and threats just enumerated, has interfered with. restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and has thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Having found that General Manager Friedman, on Oc- tober 14. announced to the employees and thereafter dis- continued providing employees with coffee and rolls, and announced and thereafter discontinued the emplosees smoking privileges in the warehouse area because of their union activities; and that General Manager Friedman about the middle and latter part of October harassed em- ployees Thomas Sugden. Edward Biondi, and Rosemarie Sohl, by imposing upon them more onerous working con- ditions because of their union activities. I hereby find that Respondent by engaging in such conduct violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Turning to the issues of whether the Respondent dis- criminatorily discharged and refused to reinstate employ- ees as alleged, it is well settled that the presence of a valid ground for discharging an employee does not legalize a dismissal which is due to a desire to discourage union ac- tivity. Borek Motor Sales, Inc. cv. , .I.R.B., 425 F.2d 677 (C.A. 7. 1970)., cert. denied 400 U.S. 823: and N.' L. RB v. Svmions Manufacturing Co.. 328 F.2d 835, 837 (C.A. 7. 1964). Direct evidence of discriminatory motivation is not necessary to support a finding of discrimination and such intent may be inferred from the record as a whole. Heath International. Inc.. 196 NLRB 318 (1972). The evidence with respect to Edward Biondi establishes that he was first discharged on October 8. shortly after the Respondent was informed by Robert Sohl. through his un- lawful interrogation by President Friedman, that Biondi had signed a union authorization card that day. Following his discharge President Friedman indicated to Robert Sohl that was the reason for Biondi's discharge. Based upon such evidence, as well as Respondent's union animus, I find that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged Ed- ward Biondi on October 8 and refused to reinstate him until October 14 because of his union membership and ac- tivities in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Insofar as Biondi's subsequent termination about October 22 is concerned, the findings set forth above show that. following his reinstatement on October 14. General Man- ager Friedman harassed him by imposing upon him more onerous working conditions because of his union activities and President Friedman solicited him to quit his job. while indicating to him the emplosees should not have gone to the Union. Under these circumstances, considered along with his prior discriminatory discharge. I find the Respon- dent, b' such conduct, caused Edward Biondi to quit his emploament, thereby constructively discharging him about October 22. because of his union membership and activi- ties in violation of Section 8(a}3) and (I) of the Act. Ihe findings with respect to the October I I discharges of Ihomas Sugden and Robert Sohl disclose that both Sug- den and Sohl had signed union authorization cards: Presi- dent F riedman through the unlawful interrogation of Rob- ert Sohl on October 8 and 11 had knowledge they had signed cards, in addition to President Friedman being shown Sugden's card b IU nion Vice President Garber on October 8. and each of them was discharged shortly. or as in Sohl's case. immediatel) after the Respondent learned then had signed union cards. Under these circumstances. coupled with Respondent's union animus, and absent as here ans defense to their discharges. I am persuaded and find that Respondent discriminatorily discharged Thomas Sugden and Robert Sohl on October I I and refused to reinstate them until October 14 because of their union memberships and activities and thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act. Upon examining the evidence pertaining to Rosemarie Sohl's termination, such evidence, contrary to Respon- dent's assertions, establishes that, rather than having quit her employment, she was discharged by General Manager F:riedman after she had refused to perform work of a more onerous nature, imposed upon her by Friedman because of her union activities, notwithstanding she had previously been excused from doing such work because of her present phbssical condition. For these reasons, along with Respon- dent's union animus and having rejected Respondent's contentions she quit, I am persuaded and find the Respon- dent discriminatorilI discharged Rosemarie Sohl on Octo- ber 29 and thereafter refused to reinstate her because of her union membership and activities in violation of Section 8(a (3) and l I) of the Act. Insofair as Robert Sohl's October 14 discharge is con- cerned, the evidence siq)ra establishes that General Manag- er Friedman informed Rosemarie Sohl her husband was discharged because of the Lnion and indicated to Robert Sohl. upon discharging him. that the accusation he had sabotaged company property was not only false but was being used as a pretext to get rid of him. Besides these reasons, which related to Sohl's union activities, among the written reasons given by the Respondent to the Union for Sohl's discharge was Sohl's conversation with General Manager Friedman at the October 14 meeting, wherein Sohl informed Friedman. over Friedman's objections, that he would contact OSIIA concerning the safetr of the New- wai, labeling machine. Based on this evidence, along with R(obert Sohl's prior unlawful discharge on October II. I find that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged Rob- ert Sohl on October 14 and thereafter refused to reinstate him because of his union membership and activities in vio- lation of section 8(a)(31 and (I) of the Act, and also be- caiuse of his protected concerted activities regarding his in- tentions to complain to OS1A. thereby violating Section 8(a)(i ) of the Act.' Seek Inilg to e tnforcet.i titort pro\l:ir LInI rC.,llln 1to IC ILiC.L' l lO ll . l't\ deslgilcd for the he iefil ,f iall empl oNe'c ,t tOlll t ¢ue ,I prOtct. inl cried aci, t% See -4il/r.i I n .ii,, ( , 1./!. 221 NI RB 'It9,i <1'- I 189 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Further, additional evidence to support the above find- ings of the discriminatorily discharges of Edward Biondi, Robert Sohl, and Rosemarie Sohl consists of President Friedman's statement to Attorney Horowitz the latter part of November, indicating that his reason for refusing to sign a contract was because he had gotten rid of everybody who had signed for the Union. Although the Respondent argues that the statements signed by Edward Biondi, Robert Sohl, and Rosemarie Sohl, following their discharges, constitute settlement agreements 36 and preclude finding a violation of the Act, such argument is without merit and is hereby rejected inas- much as the rights guaranteed under the Act are in the public interest rather than private rights. See SchuAlkill Metals Corporation, 218 NLRB 317 (1975). The remaining issues are whether the Respondent en- gaged in bad-faith bargaining with the Union and thereaf- ter refused to bargain with the Union as the exclusive bar- gaining representative of the employees in the unit and made unilateral changes. The statutory obligation to bargain requires the parties to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. (Sec. 8(d) of the Act.) The essential element in the principles of collective bargaining is the "serious intent" of the parties to reach a common ground. Romo Paper Products Corp., 220 NLRB 519 (1975). An employer having voluntarily recognized a union which represents a majority of its employees is required to bargain a reasonable period of time before it can withdraw recognition from the union. Brennan's Cadillac, Inc., 231 NLRB 224 (1977): and Keller Plastics Eastern, Inc., 157 NLRB 583 (1966). Further, even where an employer has a reasonably grounded doubt of a union's continued majori- ty status which must be based on objective considerations, such doubt cannot be raised in the context of unfair labor practices or for the purpose of gaining time to undermine the union. Bartenders, Hotel, Motel and Restaurant Emploh- ers Bargaining Association of Pocatello, Idaho, 213 NLRB 651 (1974). The evidence, supra, establishes that, on October 13, the Respondent recognized the Union, which represented a majority, as their exclusive collective-bargaining represen- tative of the employees in the appropriate unit and thereaf- ter met with the Union from October 14 until the latter part of November during which period contract proposals and counterproposals were exchanged and discussed. However, the latter part of November, President Friedman informed his negotiator, Attorney Horowitz, there was no need to sign a contract because the Union did not repre- sent a majority of the employees; that he had gotten rid of everyone who signed for it and there would not be a con- tract. Attorney Sullivan, who replaced Attorney Horowitz as the Respondent's representative, further indicated to the 'I the Respondent's further argument such statements constitute aidllis- sions against interest of these individuals is likewise rejected since I find the overall evidence clearl, establishes these individuals swere discrimltl.li, rfi discharged prior toI executing such statements for the reasons givecn Union's representatives who sought to continue negotia- tions, on December 6, that President Friedman wanted to get rid of them and would not continue negotiations. Such conduct, considered in the context of the Respon- dent's other unlawful conduct herein found, particularly the discriminatory discharges of the union adherents, clear- ly establishes an unlawful refusal by the Respondent since about October 14 to bargain in good faith with the Union and an unlawful refusal by Respondent since December 6 to bargain with the Union, thereby violating Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act. Here, as the evidence establishes, Re- spondent utilized the period during which negotiations were being conducted to rid itself of the union adherents and to dissipate the Union's majority status. Moreover, neither a reasonable period of bargaining had elapsed nor could the Respondent. because of its unfair labor practices, properly question the Union's majority status. Having found that the Union, since October 13, has been the bargaining representative of the unit employees, I further find that the Respondent. on October 14, by unilat- erally and without consulting and bargaining with the Union, discontinuing providing employees with coffee and rolls and with their smoking privileges in the warehouse area also violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. The law is well settled that unilateral changes in terms and conditions of employment without bargaining with the union repre- senting such employees violates Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. Amsterdam Printing & Litho Corp., 223 NLRB 370 (1976); and N.L.R.B. v. (Benne) Katz, et al., d/b/a Williamsburg Steel Products Co., 369 U.S. 736 (1962). IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section II1, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. CONCkLUSIONS OF LAW I. Chemtronics, Inc., is an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Local 42, Industrial Production Employees Union. is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By engaging in the surveillance of the employees' union activities: by coercively interrogating employees concerning their union memberships and activities and those of other employees; by threatening employees with stricter working conditions because they selected the Union to represent them: and by threatening employees with possible physical harm because of their union activi- ties, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaran- teed in Section 7 of the Act and has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 190 CHEMTRONICS, INC. 4. By harassing employees Thomas Sugden. Edward Biondi, and Rosemarie Sohl by imposing upon them more onerous working conditions because of their union activi- ties: by discontinuing providing employees with coffee and rolls and with their smoking privileges in the warehouse area because of their union activities: by discriminatorily discharging Edward Biondi from October 8 to October 14. 1976. and Thomas Sugden and Robert Sohl from October i to October 14, 1976. and thereafter discharging Edward Biondi about October 22. 1976. Robert Sohl on October 14, 1976, and Rosemarie Sohl on October 29. 1976. and refusing to reinstate them because of their union member- ship and activities and because of Robert Sohl's protected concerted activities regarding his October 14 discharge. Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in viola- tion of Section 8(a)( 1) and (3) of the Act. 5. All production and maintenance, shipping and receiv- ing employees of Respondent. employed at its Hauppauge plant. exclusive of office clerical employees. guards, profes- sional employees and all supervisors defined in Section 2(11) of the Act constitute a unit appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- tion 9(b) of the Act. 6. The Union is now. and at all times since October 13. 1976. has been, the exclusive representative for the pur- poses of collective bargaining of the employees in the aforesaid unit within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 7. By refusing to bargain in good faith and thereafter refusing to bargain with the Union as the exclusive bar- gaining representative of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit: and by unilaterally discontinuing provid- ing employees in the unit with coffee and rolls and with their smoking privileges in the warehouse area without no- tifying or consulting with the Union, Respondent has en- gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec- tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Tlih RFMmDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer- tain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1). (3), and (5) of the Act. I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac- tion to effectuate the policies of the Act. Accordingly, the Respondent shall be ordered to immediately reinstate Ed- ward Biondi. Robert Sohl, and Rosemarie Sohl to their former jobs or, if these jobs no longer exist, then to sub- stantialls equivalent jobs without prejudice to their senior- ity and other rights and pri ileges and to make each of them whole for any loss of earnings and compensation they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them in their employment herein found by discriminatorily discharging Edward Biondi about October 22. 1976. Rob- ert Sohl on October 14. 1976. and Rosemarie Sohl on Octo- ber 29. 1976.i The Respondent shall also make Eldward to the mRones, tEd iard Bi nridi Ro belrt Sohl, ld Rosrteniric St,h receincd from the Respondent under the seitlemenrit igreeienll/l ther e ntredr inio Biondi. Robert Sohl. and Thomas Sugden whole for any loss of earnings and compensation they maN have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them in their em- ployment herein found bs discriminatorily discharging Ed- ward Biondi for the period October 8 to October 14, 1976. and Robert Sohl and Thomas Sugden for the period Octo- ber I I to October 14. 1976. Backpay shall be computed on the basis set forth in F. W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950). with interest computed in accordance with the formula set forth in Florida Steel Corporation. 231 NLRB 651 (1977).38 It shall be recommended that Respondent cease harass- ing Thomas Sugden. Edward Biondi, and Rosemarie Sohl bh imposing upon them more onerous working conditions because of their union activities. To remedy the Respondent's refusal to bargain in good faith and to bargain with the Union, I shall recommend that the Respondent recognize the Union and, upon re- quest. bargain collectively and in good faith with the Lnion as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit and if an understanding is reached embody such understanding in a written signed agreement. With respect to the discontinuance of providing employ- ees with coffee and rolls and with their smoking privileges in the warehouse area which were unilaterally as well as for discriminators reasons discontinued. I shall recommend that these benefits and privileges be restored as they ex- isted prior to their discontinuance on October 14. 1976, and that the Respondent be ordered to bargain with the Union before making such unilateral changes. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law. and the entire record. and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act. I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER 39 The Respondent. Chemtronics. Inc.. Hauppauge. New York. its officers, agents. successors, and assigns, shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Engaging in surveillance of employees' union activi- ties. (by Coercively interrogating employees concerning their union membership and activities and those of other em- ploS ees. (c) Threatening employees with stricter working condi- tions for selecting the Union to represent them. (Id) Threatening employees with possibly physical harm because of their union activities. (e) Discouraging membership in Local 42. Industrial Production IEmployees Union. or any other labor organiza- tion. by discharging or refusing to reinstate, or in any other with the Respondent shall, to the extent theN were pasments for mratters thes would be entitled to he reimbursed as hackpas. be deducted from their backpas due ', See. erterall,. fis Plt'lrminbi dl Halting ( o, 138 NL.RB 716 (1962) '1 In the esenit il ecxcptlons are filed as provided hs Sec 10 46 of Ihe Rule, anrid Reculanins , f the Naltionalll Ihabor Relations Board. the findings C.rTICllltOns a in, recoz.nmrielded Order herein shall. as presided in Se, lid' 48 of the Rules iand Ret iululollrs he .dopted hb the Board and hecoime it., firlirdins ontmiunl .I ri, d Ordel i1iid all .hjectlirn theretio shall be deeed ,I.tX cd fobr I11 pTrps"C', 191 DECISIONS OF NATIONA . LABOR RELATIONS BOARD manner discriminating against employees in regard to hire or tenure of employ ment or any term or condition of em- ployment. (f) Discouraging concerted activities of the employees within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act, by discharging. refusing to reinstate, or in any other manner discriminating against employees for engaging in such activities. (g) Harassing Edward Biondi. Thomas Sugden. Rose- marie Sohl, or any other employees by imposing upon them more onerous working conditions because of their union activities. (h) Discontinuing providing employees with coffee and rolls and with their smoking privileges in the warehouse area because of their union activities. (i) Refusing to bargain collectively and in good faith with lIocal 42. Industrial Production Employees Union. as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit concerning rates of pay. wages, hours of employment. and other terms and condi- tions of employment: All production and maintenance, shipping and re- ceiving employees of Respondent, employed at its Hlauppauge plant. exclusive of office clerical employ- ees, guards. professional employees and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act. (j) Making unilateral changes in the terms and condi- tions of employment without first consulting and bargain- ing with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representa- tive of its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit. (k) In any other manner interfering with. restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Recognize and, upon request, bargain in good faith with Local 42, Industrial Production Employees Union, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and condi- tions of employment and, if an understanding is reached embody the terms of such understanding in a written signed agreement. (b) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to Edward Biondi. Robert Sohl. and Rosemarie Sohl to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist. then to substantially equivalent jobs without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges and make them, along with Fhomas Sugden. whole for any loss of pay or other com- pensation the)y may have suffered by reason of the discrim- ination against them in the manner set forth in that section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (c) Restore providing employees with coffee and rolls and with their smoking privileges in the warehouse area as they existed prior to their discontinuance on October 14, 1976. (d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay- roll records. social security payment records, timecards. personnel records and reports, and all other records neces- sary to analyze and determine the amount of backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (e) Post at its Hauppauge, New York. facility copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 40 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 29. after being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof. and be maintained by it for 60 con- secutive days thereafter. in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily post- ed. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29. in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply therewith. Ii is I IS Ft RItR ORDRtI that the amended complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleged unfair labor practices not specifically found herein. In the e,.ent hI hi tllis ()Ordei i, enfl, d hb i Judme nt ofi r .a t ed Siates o(rt f \ppn.i. die oi. ad, in thC nltlce re.ding 'tosted h; Order elf 1th N iwni l I..htbor Rcit.ioln, Board" ' all rcid '-Poicd t'uru.il 1i d .h Ultcii l Af the I iuld Sia ii'1, ( Ourt 'If \ppcAll i',l Lnfiri 11 () Ordcr f the N tlial I.ah,)hor Reallons Bld 192